Google can distinguish between off-page SEO & natural linking.

If sites like Compete, Quantcast & Alexa are able to measure your traffic, don't you think Google with its vast data resources has even better capabilities? There's Google Search, Google Chrome, Google Toolbar, Google Adwords and they might even dip into Compete, Quantcast & Alexa's data. There representative sampling is astronomical.

Certain websites probably wouldn't get links... that's the point... You'd set an artificial link-conversion target based on categorical linking trends, which are skewed high due to off-page SEO.

I agree. A gradually increasing rate is preferable - a good, general practice.

 

not to mention stating unsubstantiated opinions (and likely nonsense) as facts.

 

Not yet. But if/when it happens, I'll be happy. If the search engines can one day develop the sophistication to accurately analyze content and make content the main factor in the SERPs, I will be thrilled.

The SEs are not there yet, but it's something to hope for. Imagine a world wide web where the best content rises to the top, without non-content-related "SEO" efforts to massage the rankings. It's something to hope and dream for ... except for websites with weak content.

 

"They" - you know. They? Who else would it be?

http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66356

Haha! You're from Ibiza.

Seriously though, if Google isn't doing this, why aren't they? For God's sake! It's so simple!

 

Ok this is the third instance of this exact same post that I have come across. There is one in the Google topic: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1224667
one in the Search Engine Optimization topic: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1224676
and this one. The OP even makes a point of using a different post title in each topic. Sorry but this is blatant spam. I was going to let the second one slide, but now I am reporting this post as spam and giving you -rep. Don't spam this forum please.

 

This is nothing new. All right, here's what Google says:

So, we all know that we need links pointing to our sites. And we all know that Google can't penalize (or shouldn't penalize) sites just because they have weird links pointing to them.

Otherwise this will be a bloody battle. Right? But i agree with you to some extent. Yet, Google won't penalize you just because i've placed 10K links with same anchor pointing at you in 5K directories + blogs.

Unique content and natural linking flow is nothing new to SEO.

You said it right. Nice post btw.

 

That would be great. But I have a feeling that even with a great content evaluation system utilizing latent semantic indexing, syntax linguistics, behavioral search and even AI, you would still have a bunch of websites competing for the same phrases and off-page SEO will still be a major factor.

How is it spam? The discussion fits several topics and I'm not selling anything.

 

Semantic search is waaay closer than 10 years, especially with the ammount of money behind search these days.

Also none of the data you've listed yeild particularly good results. They are immensely "noisey" data sets that do not function well as anything other than supplemental metrics.

So no, off-page is not dead. Not by a long shot. And it will never be, because even after Google perfects everything (like thats ever going to happen) there is still going to be demand for people who can market their content in such a way that it builds links.

... what?

Is this some kind of disguised troll? First its "OFF PAGE IS DEAD!" now its "off page will always live on!"

 

What sources do you base your main post on? also all the sites you've mentioned get traffic data through user installed plugins.

 

How can SEO die? SEO will never die, only forms of SEO and optimization methods "die" or to state it more accurately, "change".

I don't get how the system you describe will work. A friend marked a site bad? What about spammers flagging all their competition? Well probably Google will do something about this, if such a system launches I will hate the internetiezz.

 

Which do you think has a more accurate sampling: the search engine with 55% market share, or a plugin installed less than 1% of all browsers (mostly SEOs)?

Isn't the Google search bar a plugin?

Noisy on the low-traffic end in the short term, but even with low-traffic sites, as the history grows, the data becomes more reliable.

"Is off page SEO dead?" - not OFF PAGE SEO IS DEAD!

It's called a provocative headline.

 

This is good! thank you!

 

That is irrelevant unless spammers are your friends.

 

"Not selling anything"? That's a curious reply when right below the above post your signature reads:
__________________
Web Hosting Plans under 5 dollars a month. Unlimited bandwidth & disc space.

 

man... you guys are thick.

 

good info for the beginners.thanks for sharing .

 

Max - +1 on reputation because I think you started one of the more useful dialogs in this forum.

For the most part I think you are right on...even if some actual search results don't bear this out. I can think of some very shady sites off hand that have VERY unnatural off page SEO that are doing quite well. But, the intent of the algo is to fish them out and sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't or at least takes awhile.

If you're in it for the long haul with a "branded" url I would say your advice is very good. If you're out for a quick buck with a disposable url, the system can be gamed for quick results.

Google doesn't leak things out. They have many public blogs including one just for webmasters that lay out in detail what their general quality guidelines are. Matt Cutts is also a good read.

 

I agree - great post max.

Even if you like to post it on every thread

 

Spam???
Getting his sig shown can be done by just posting anywhere, which is a good thing if posts are of a certain quality. Also, this might be a way to get some bucks out of the revenue sharing at this forum, but I don't think maximizationator has this set up. I checked the pub-XXXXX code and this stays the same.

So, this is a good thread and not spam. Maximizationator just likes a good conversation I guess.

 

Been doing some thinking about natural linking - how Google might approach linking rate (point number 1). If a website receives links at a dubiously high conversion rate (links / visitor) on a continual basis over it's history, Google wouldn't really have any insight into the sites actual link conversion rate. And they couldn't penalize the site due to the fact that if they did, unnatural linking would be a way to penalize your competition. Google would probably apply a damping factor to the PR transfer of such lopsided linking.

However, if the linking history of shows consistent lulls in the linking conversion rate, appears erratic (over adequate sampling duration) or exhibits a complete drop-off in linking, and the "link market" (available related sites) hasn't come close to approaching saturation (as it might in smaller niches), Google might have some insight into your natural linking conversion rate (using some kind of moving average) - the lower end telling the real (natural) story.

Google might have insights into what an achievable natural linking rate is for a given niche. So sites acquiring links at a rate beyond what Google deems passively achievable might be wasting some effort. Everything else being equal (not duplicate content), it may be that 2 sites - one with a high, but achievable linking rate and another with an unbelievably high linking rate - would receive the same overall amount of link juice.

Then again, I might be looking too deeply into "linking rate". After all, even if a link profile shows an erratic, inflated or otherwise questionable history, a link from one site to another still tells Google that one website trusted another website enough to risk its reputation by linking to it, which should always have value. Of course, that statement doesn't apply to bought links, pay per post, etc.